See Spot Run: But to Whom?

A law recently passed in Alaska requires judges in divorce cases to consider a pet’s well-being before deciding which parent gets “custody” of the pet.

This is the first law in the country that has addressed this issue; pets have traditionally been treated the same as other marital property. Animal rights activists are hailing the law as an important step towards making sure that animals get a fair shake when their ownership gets called into question.

From an emotions-of-the-participants standpoint, this type of law may create stress where there was none before (but maybe that’s OK).

For example, Person A and B are engaged. Person A buys dog (“Spot”) before the marriage. Both owners love Spot, but Person B does the majority of the feeding/walking, etc. Let’s say after two years, this couple files for divorce. Under the existing laws, Spot may very well go to person A, who bought Spot/took ownership of Spot pre-marriage. Under this new law, however, the judge would be required to consider Spot’s well-being. Given that Person B did most of the caring for Spot, it’s entirely possible that Person B is granted custody.

To be sure, the animal’s well-being is not THE determining factor, just one of a number of factors to be considered. Even so, what do you think of this law? Totally fair and a good idea? Unfair to some owners? Completely unnecessary?

This website contains attorney advertising, and is provided for informational purposes only; nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice or an offer to perform services on any subject matter. The use of this website does not create or imply an attorney/client relationship.